I listened to the entire sermon. To me it is a wonderful chain that is missing the most important link.

re #2 – not that that is his fault though

His message was moving in its humantitarianism and contrition, however he did not provide the only answer.

Faith in Jesus Christ and His redemption through the cross. Without the gospel he has only identified many problems but did not give the answer. There were many poignant stories but Christ was missing.

In the context of a church where the gospel is clearly enunciated in many messages, I would agree that the gospel itself isn’t necessary in an evangelistic way in every message. I personally do not find that environment at Mars Hill.

As I have said before, all of us deal with preconceived perseptions and it is difficult to have an impartial assessment. At least you did admit there was no gospel in the message.

#10
As I was listening I was doing research into Dan. He seems like a very qualified person. I did not say one thing about his faith or his evangelical chops, Corey. I am sorry to see that you did.

My comment was based upon the very LACK of the Gospel at Mars Hill over the months.

I, like Rick, have listened to sermons from RB, SH, and now DA, and have read books, interviews, etc. and found the Gospel lacking.

And to answer your question, (#8) Joe, I try to weave the Gospel into EVERY message. Its good news, and I am not ashamed of it. It is found on every page and passage that can be read. Nice stories and funny illustrations are great for performance art, and without the Gospel, thats all that is accomplished.

Before Christ, I have no agenda or angst against Bell or anyone else. I cannot be anymore sincere and I cannot understand how Biblicly literate people do not see even a slight problem.

I still attribute it to a form of human idolatry. I know professing believers who have had a bad experience in an evangelical church and joined the Mormons because they found community and support. Environment cannot be our standard, it must be the gospel.

PB:

I manage to disagree with a bunch of people here all the time.

But then, not to brag, I’d like to think that I can formulate a decent argument, I possess basic reading skills, and I am capable of disagreeing with people without just repeating “strawman” over and over again.

So trust me, the hostility that you encounter here is a function of the fact that you say silly things without backing them up.

John does deal in hyperbole sometimes, and his support of Ingrid is a major league inconsistency. So you may discount his perspective.

But what about me? I have confronted Ken many times, and I have scolded John as well. And my perspective on Ingrid is well known. So where am I wrong about the overall ministry of Rob Bell? I do not say he is not a believer, but after reading his history I believe he has and continues to stray.

If the gospel as expounded by Paul is outdated, then let us excelerate our pace. Let us move rapidly forward into a more earthly expression of Christ that negates the cross and rel;ies heavily upon the circumstances of this world.

The preaching of the cross is absolute foolishness.

PB:

I do not doubt your motives. Not at all. And I truly commend you to your desire to teach the gospel.

That being said, you nevertheless are the single least charitable reader I’ve ever encountered. You regularly distort arguments to score cheap points, and whenever anyone calls you on it, you just change the subject.

That dishonors Christ.

M.G. – I direct your attention to a blog which uses the word “cross” in its title and that interpreted Obama’s traditional turkey pardon as “Hitleresque”.

He is genuine, and I have to believe that he realizes more than he says about Ingrid.

“This is not the case with Ingrid, Ken, John MacArthur, Doug Pagitt, John Piper, Shane Claibourne, Jim Wallis, or even Brian McLaren.”

Let’s play the game “Which of these doea not belong?”

MG
We will be there last week of July, 1st week of August this year, if the Lord tarries and wills it.

We do Times Square at Night, during the Day we do MSG, Battery Park, Union Square Park, and the Staten Island Ferry. Will update you on a schedule closer to the date. We can hit a coffee shop following, or grab a Gyro from a street vender.

If the gospel as expounded by Paul is outdated, then let us excelerate our pace. Let us move rapidly forward into a more earthly expression of Christ that negates the cross and rel;ies heavily upon the circumstances of this world.

Rick,
You’ve said that you’ve read Jesus Wants to Save Christians, right? I simply don’t understand how you could read that book and come to the conclusion that it’s about something other than the Gospel. He talks very openly about the cross, why it was necessary, and what it means to mankind.

Personally, I don’t think the Gospel is something that can necessarily be narrowly defined. The evangelion that Christ is King can be proclaimed in any number of ways. The gospel isn’t a simply a message for people’s personal transformation, it’s the reality that God through Christ has been faithful to His Word and He is redeeming His creation and His people. As the Church, our job is to bear witness to the fact that the New Creation is breaking into the old, and that one day Christ will return to consummate the Kingdom that is ever expanding.

So where am I wrong about the overall ministry of Rob Bell? – rick

so let me get this straight; because you have a concern with bell, this sermon by allender is lacking? what if it had been delivered at a different setting?

i agree bell is someone we can argue about. but let’s be fair and not cast doubt on someone’s sermon based on the venue.

i am not sure why joe posted the sermon – other than to share it and because of it’s power.

it is both troubling and boringly predictable that the topic was immediately hijacked to bell – yet again.

while i did not track with the logic at every point… to call it lacking because – well, i’m not sure what it lacked.

“Genuine” isn’t exactly the word I’d use to describe PB, especially given his recent behavior on the discussion about Wright. He pretty much out and out lied about him and never recanted even when presented undeniable quotes to the contrary. I suppose he could be genuinely deluded.

It seems some people will commend people simply for being zealous, but if someone is zealous and wrong, it’s not good – it can be downright harmful.

back to the sermon. i thought allenders expansion of the meaning of the text was a bit overplayed. i don’t disagree with his conclusions, i’m just not sure i agree with how he connected the dots.

but that is more of a delivery critique – if that makes sense.

I served with Rob Bell, I know Rob Bell, Rob Bell was friend of mine. PB you are no Rob Bell.

I have no earthly idea how a pastor can tweet ‘This weeks sunday sermon involves me riding a bike’ I mean c’mon.

And so…????? What’s the big deal? Can’t imagine why a pastor would __________? Filll in the blank with whatever your particular pet peeve is.

Why is John’s misreprentation of what Wright said any different than some misrepresenting what Bell did not say? When it comes to the gospel we are only called to be diplomatic as it pertains to tone, but that diplomacy must never enter the gospel itself and alter the clear message.

Unless some new evidence comes forth I personally am left to believe that Pastor Bell no longer believes as do I. I will attempt to guard my heart against “having men’s peronages in admiration” to the point where I refuse to address legitimate and obvious problems with men that I appreciate.

If my oldest son strayed from the truth I would have no problem saying so to his face and publicly through many tears. My only allegiance is to the Lord Jesus Christ, and in that “I have promises to keep, And miles to go before I sleep”.

I have no earthly idea how a pastor can tweet ‘This weeks sunday sermon involves me riding a bike’ I mean c’mon.
At least NT Wright (who is still wrong on justification in that one area) would not do such a stunt.
#41 You presented no undeniable quotes that demonstrate that Wright DOES NOT believe in future justification. I provided (I believe) three that shows he does.
#35 The gospel according to Rob Bell was in JWTSC- he described it- and I am being general here- as God painting blood on the doorposts of the universe’ (universalism)

#50 Sorry Chris…here goes…For it is by one man sin entered the world and death through sin. Since then, we have been condemned (John 3:19) Jesus came to be our substitute for condemnation. God poured out his wrath, and Jesus’ life blood made atonement for our sins. He did not paint this blood on the doorposts of the universe for everyone, for as it says in John 3:16-18, it is contigent upon belief-trust-in the Savior alone for our salvation.

#50 –

However, something that is not so humorous is that some of us have articulated the gospel more clearly in bolg comments than can be found in Bell’s sermons, tours, and interviews.

I have absolutely no problem with advertising that a pastor will ride a bike as long as the lost who are drawn by such sensationalism are presented with the gospel.

Here’s the thing: the very fact that there is a nebulous cloud hanging over Pastor Bell is reason enough for him to be avoided in my view. What is the reason for him being so unclear and unspecific about precisely what he believes and the path to salvation?

Why do you literally have to hunt for clarity through his words?

Those who like him will point to an excerpt here or there, but I get the sense that what PB and Rick are getting at is that he is just muffled enough and diplomatic enough and crafty enough to shroud the clarity of the gospel behind wordplay (I’ll never forget the waste-of-time Peter Rollins video where you leave more confused than anything else).

We are living in times of deception where not everything with a “steeple” represents the Lord Jesus Christ.

Then THANK God that Mars doesn’t have a steeple.

I thought you would notice “steeple” in quotations. I could have said that not everyone who claims to speak on behalf of Christ is of Christ.

This is very clear in 1 and 2 Corinthians as in other places. Eloquence, worldly wisdom and philosophy seem to be the order of the day.

OK chris, I will try once again. Since you suggest Bell does clearly present the gospel in different ways, you must have some references in mind. Please give me three distinct gospel presentations by Rob Bell, even if they are in a little different form.

Than you.

And in my view it’s not nebulous and unclear.

#64: and you might say the same of Peter Rollins (even though, for me, listening to him brought back memories of being under the influence of numerous substances).

In fact, you could take any false prophet and draw the same conclusion.

Whatever happened to preaching Christ and Him crucified?? The only way, the only light on the shore and only calm in the storm?

All these new-age, philosopher preachers get tiresome.

And Here:

How would you present this gospel on Twitter?

I would say that history is headed somewhere. The thousands of little ways in which you are tempted to believe that hope might actually be a legitimate response to the insanity of the world actually can be trusted. And the Christian story is that a tomb is empty, and a movement has actually begun that has been present in a sense all along in creation. And all those times when your cynicism was at odds with an impulse within you that said that this little thing might be about something bigger—those tiny little slivers may in fact be connected to something really, really big.

Not quite down to 140 characters.

Well, you can’t really tweet the gospel. I’m convinced that I am not doing anything new. I am hoping that I’m in a long tradition.

Some more from CT:

All well and good, but how is this good news to people with no earthly hope? If I’m dying of aids or cancer, I probably don’t give a rip about the renewal of all things. I want to know if my sins are forgiven, and when I die, if am I going to see Jesus or not.

Yes, and I would say that central to that new creation is the problem with the first creation—death. The Resurrection is about God dealing with the death problem. And central to this giant cosmic hope is a very intimate, yes, you can trust this Jesus. You can trust this new creation. You can trust being with him when you die, when you leave this life, however you want to put it. Yes, there is an intensely personal dimension to this giant story that you and I get to be a part of.

Unless some new evidence comes forth I personally am left to believe that Pastor Bell no longer believes as do I. – Rick

rick,

this is fine, and if we could just stick to discussing whatr people believe and preach that would be fine. but some think that interjecting their objections against a guys style is relevant.

I realize the cross of Jesus Christ is not avante garde and new age, but it will always be the power of God to salvation. I fear multitudes are following religious movements who have never been born again through faith in Jesus Christ and His cross of redemption and resurrection.

I disagree wholeheartedly with Bell’s suggestion that the gospel is lrager than individual salvation; there is NOTHING greater that individualsalvation.

What should it profit a man if he gains the whole world, cures global hunger, solves the riddle of creation, stops injustice, brings peace to the nations, and LOSES HIS OWN SOUL.

I realize the cross of Jesus Christ is not avante garde and new age, but it will always be the power of God to salvation.

Maybe it’s not about avante garde and more about communicating in a style that those under 40 can understand. You feelin’ me dawg?

#69: thank you for confirming the error of being absolutely nebulous. You are asking to tweet the gospel and the best you can come up with is a rambling statement that needs to be read and re-read a few times? Even then you’re unsure of what’s being said. Sin? The cross? The only way?

I mean, come-on… “I would say that history is headed somewhere.” Limp-wristed rubbish. Sorry.

I mean, come-on… “I would say that history is headed somewhere.” Limp-wristed rubbish. Sorry.

Yeah and “I affirm the Nicene Creed” is so limp wristed. You see what you want to see.

Yes, and I would say that central to that new creation is the problem with the first creation—death.

No, Rob, the first creation was not death. Death was the result of sin as the Bible makes abundantly clear.

The Resurrection is about God dealing with the death problem.

No, the resurrection of Jesus is God’s affirmation of His Son’s sacrificial death, his paying the penalty for sin, making atonement. The resurrection proves God accepts this sacrifice on behalf of those who would believe. It also proves Jesus is God, he laid down His life an He took it up again.

And central to this giant cosmic hope is a very intimate, yes, you can trust this Jesus. You can trust this new creation. You can trust being with him when you die, when you leave this life, however you want to put it.

Who can? Who can trust that? How do they trust it? The way Rob describes this is universal in scope. It is not an individual responding to the move of God on His or her life, it is universal in scope, so you do not have to worry about anything. This was a VERY directed question about individual salvation, and Rob responds as if the individual has nothing to worry about because God is making all things new. THIS IS NOT ORTHODOX IT IS NOT THE GOSPEL.

Yes, there is an intensely personal dimension to this giant story that you and I get to be a part of.

How do we get to be a part of it? Again, Rob assumes we are all a part of it.

The wheels are coming off, along with the chain and the pedals. Even the frame is beginning to evaporate.

Other limp wristed approaches to the Gospel:

Jesus Saves, John 3:16, God is Love, signs at sporting events.

Christian T-shirts, bumper stickers, testamints.

Cross jewelry, wwjd bracelets, church signs.

Am I right, Paul?

Probably so, though I’m not aware of any personally… Though it might be more common among white guys who have watched one-too-many rap videos and feel the need to be “relevant”. Could be wrong though.

rap videos and feel the need to be “relevant”. Could be wrong though.

If your referring to this “white guy” it’s probably cause I grew up in the same neighborhood you visited awhile ago and described as “chechnya”. And I have heard the gospel presented that way. Not all the time but I was just expanding on Ricks initial introduction.

Chris, I know – jus’ kidding (hence smiley).

To be honest though, I know a lot of people (black and from the other side of the tracks) that would see through this and mock it as a transparent effort to be down.

I would say that this type of approach is not recommended unless you are from the neighborhood.

For example, I don’t recommend Rick going out to the other side of the tracks this afternoon with these lines memorized. It could end badly.

I think Rick should roll up in his hooptie and whoop some of that righteous rap up in Tampa in the hood knaw’ mean?

Better yet, Rob Bell should just go there and speak the way he usually does. He should go there and do it in church. I have the feeling that none of the african american ministers I know down there would give him more than 60 seconds before they kicked him out.

anyone have any thoughts on the actual sermon?

i am still not sure what rick thought it lacked.

#92 Thats not the point and you know it.

What does a bicycle have to do with the Gospel? Nothing.

yeah, i know… the point is – he is not doing it the way you want him to.

i could as easily ask “what does a bullhorn have to do with the gospel?” or “what does darwin’s book have to do with the gospel?”

of course, the answer is “nothing.”

they are all just methods, illustrations, attention grabbers.

we all use them.

i attended a church for a while that gave an alter call at the end of every service.

no matter what the passage being taught, it HAD to be related to a traditional gospel challenge – whether that was in the passage or not.

and of course, the sermon was passively judged by the number of folks who came forward.

sometimes, a passage in question can be adequately taught without calling people to make first time decisions to follow christ.

“If you affirm something but don’t practice it you don’t actual affirm it?”

Absolutely!!! What we DO is what we believe, everything else is just “statements of faith”. (religious talk)

Where is the lie, Joe???

Do I need to link the Boston.com interview again??

You are a blasphemer, Joe. My Father is God, by the grace of God through the shed blood of Jesus Christ.

#104
Love wins, Rick.

Mumbo jumbo.

Even though I would stillhave Biblical problems with emergent teachings, I would still give it more credibility if those who espouse such things exhibited a much different behavior in their Christian lives.

Sadly, they do not.

Mumbo jumbo.

Even though I would stillhave Biblical problems with emergent teachings, I would still give it more credibility if those who espouse such things exhibited a much different behavior in their Christian lives.

Sadly, they do not.

of course, this is an accusation that is as true of pastorboy as it is joe… as well as me…

#109 – So we are left with the Biblical template alone.

Neil the post had no such warnings or parameters. It was an open thread.

Step sven – Complain about all the other steps.

implicit in all posts is the assumption that it is introducing a specific topic of discussion.

do we need to add disclaimers to all threads outlining the topic?

granted, it is assumed that anything that can be connected to bell will – and all the ad nauseum that follows.

but to have 100+ comments and less than 10 about the op is frustrating.

“but to have 100+ comments and less than 10 about the op is frustrating.” My first comment was about the op and the discussion ensued from there. The whining aside, the discussion is valid.

“but to have 100+ comments and less than 10 about the op is frustrating.” My first comment was about the op and the discussion ensued from there. The whining aside, the discussion is valid.

your objections are valid.
mine are whining.
glad we are clear on that.

i would gladly discuss the sermon – since i thought it had some faults – as they all do.

but we immediately got off on this boringly predictable tangent of bell again.

i have tried to addess the issue of why a sermon is lacking if it does not have an explicit gospel presentaiton.

but so far, it’s all been about bell.

I guess it is Mars Hill in Seatle? But the relevant point is that he preached for Rob Bell. Nothing sinister, and Joe mentioned Rob and Mars Hill in the op. I addressed the gospel aspect initially and it went from there.

I do not see how anyone can suggest a significant thread diversion here.

You are a liar, I’m afraid perhaps like your father. – joe

up until the recent thread, i cringed whenever someone accused another of lying.

in that thread it appears that pastorboy was caught attributing a quote to another, that was in reality, his own interpretation… a paraphrase not a quote. if that is not lying, i’m not sure what it is.

i ust wish we could get past the “he does not do things the way i would therefore…” mentality

though implying he is a son of satan… well, we’ve disagreed on these type of things before… so i guess i’ll do it again lest it be perceived that everyone agrees with everything everyone posts.

I don’t like to do a whole lot of talking about Rob or Mars and the like here in the blog world. I’m going to bump up against that line with this post and tell you that I think you should go and listen to the podcast from 11.15

Direct quote, from the 1st line of the OP.

So if it is about Allender, and his message, why mention Rob?

Chris L. – You know full well that Bell enters into this because Allender is employed by Mars Hill. Not a real stretch.

I don’t even know who Allender is…

[Takes a few moments to Google]

Allender is on staff at Mars Hill Graduate School (not affiliated at all with Mars Hill Bible Church) in Seattle, WA.

So, no, that doesn’t tell me why the thread is about Bell, but the OP is about Allender’s message…

Neil – And you approve of the “perhaps like your father” accusation?

why do you ask this? because i did not immediately and specifically dress joe down…

ok – i added it (probably not a good thing to do) to comment 121.

misquoting equals condemning someone to hell. OK.

#128 – Purposely obtuse.

BTW – I hate Michigan.

BTW – I hate Michigan.

all you have to say is…

it’s [insert time reference] and michigan still sucks!

for example: it’s december 4, 2009 and michigan still sucks!

For the record – I am against anger and lust, and sometimes threads like these test me on one of those.

For the record – I am against anger and lust, and sometimes threads like these test me on one of those.

i will admit that i wondered if my issues with the sermon were based on my discomfort with his call to repent!

OK – i edited comment 121… probably should not have… but it’s too late.

PLEASE REREAD COMMENT 121

What does a bicycle have to do with the Gospel?

I see nothing wrong with it – unless he’s not wearing a helmet.

In fact, this coming Sunday at our entertainment emporium/church I will personally be escorting a 500 lb lion up to the platform, prodding him with an electric rod and then offering to place me head in his mouth. I will be preaching about Daniel and the Lions’ Den and attempting to convey the dangers he faced because the people in the congregation are just too stupid to understand these dangers otherwise.

If you don’t hear from me Monday, just know that it didn’t go as planned. Have a great Sunday!

re 141:

apparently some forms of illustration are fine, while others are not. i guess we should set up a website where those who know what god approves of can approve of all illustrations and methods before others employ them.

we could have subsections for:
music style (chaired by ingrid)
dress (this would be chaired by macarthur)
architecture
distribution of coffee (this would be chaired by truthinator)
etc.
etc.
etc.

In fact, this coming Sunday at our entertainment emporium/church I will personally be escorting a 500 lb lion up to the platform, prodding him with an electric rod and then offering to place me head in his mouth.

Whatever, Paul.

However, I would note that my church (which I would not classify as an ‘entertainment emporium’) did have a live lion (outside, not on stage, for insurance reasons), from an exotic animal rescue organization, for a sermon in our series on Daniel a number of years ago. Having concrete illustrations for teaching is actually very Christ-like.

Perhaps you could point me to a teaching of Jesus’ where a) he used a physical illustration; and b) the physical manifestation of that illustration was not in plain sight? When he spoke of millstones and lakes, he was in a village whose primary commerce was in millstones on the edge of a lake. When he spoke of mustard seeds, he was in an area with mustard bushes/trees. When he spoke of the Temple, he was in – or in sight of- the Temple. When he spoke of paying taxes, he had a coin. Etc., etc.

Just because you’re stuck in a modernist framework in which teaching must be a mental/verbal act, and not a tangible/physical one does not mean that you’ve got it “right” and any other methods are wrong.

Chris L, as I have demonstrated in this thread, his ‘presentation’ is sufficiently clouded with language that would make it appear that salvation is universal.

You remind me of the story of the Finlander whose wife accused him of not loving her. He says “I told you it on our wedding day, and I have not recinded the statement’.

Affirmation of the Nicene Creed (indeed recitation) happens in every episcopal church every Sunday. Are these people partakers in the gospel? 100% of them? for sure? Affirming a creed makes you a Christian like reciting a mission statement makes you a company.

i am still waiting to discuss the op.

#154 brings up another point, perhaps Joe knows the answer:

Is 100% of the people in the congregation born again? Have they all been saved? Do they all have a perfect clear understanding of the Biblical gospel?

if yes, Congratulations. Your church can continue preaching anything they choose.

If no, then the Gospel SHOULD be a part of EVERY message. Besides, even if they all are Born again, that means they will LOVE the gospel and REALLY desire to hear it.

Is 100% of the people in the congregation born again? Have they all been saved? Do they all have a perfect clear understanding of the Biblical gospel?

if yes, Congratulations. Your church can continue preaching anything they choose.

If no, then the Gospel SHOULD be a part of EVERY message. Besides, even if they all are Born again, that means they will LOVE the gospel and REALLY desire to hear it.

this is ridiculous. (not the part about loving the gospel – just so you do not twist my words)

first it is ANOTHER extra-biblical construct you are trying to push on all of us as if it were universally true.

second, i would NEVER presume to judge whether everyone who shows up in our fellowship on a particular Sunday is born-again.

#98 and 99 inadequately describe, even strawman what I am talking about.

so dismiss the illustration and my argument against your point remains.

you have said that every sermon must include a gospel call unless we know that 100% of the people in the room are born-again.

those comments address that assertion.

absolutely.

I stand by that. People need to hear the Gospel. People who believe it love to hear it, people who dont believe it need to hear it. If you are breathing, you need the Gospel. Every message should give a very clear gospel call.

well, this explains a lot.

re 164: and arrogance

i do not know what else to call it when you presume to tell me what each and ever sermon i preach MUST contain.

i do not know what else to call it when you presume to tell me nad others what illustrations/methods are proper and which are not.

i do not know what to call it when you suppose you can know the hearts of other men and woman.

i do not know what else to call it when you create constructs that are extra-biblical and tell others they apply to them as well.

Absolutely!!! What we DO is what we believe, everything else is just “statements of faith”. (religious talk)

Glad we agree Rick. So tell me what does it look like to “Love your neighbor?”

But, as Pastors, our congregation’s blood is on our hands. Yes, they are responsible for their sin and rejection of the Gospel ultimately, but we are held to account more strictly, we have a stricter judgement. Thats why we need to preach the truth- specifically the Gospel.

yes, because without us they would be damned.

Oops, I meant to say, “without Jesus.”

yes, because without us they would be damned.

Oops, I meant to say, “without Jesus.”

hehe

i believe we are called to preach the gospel.

i am unconvinced that i should fret that anyone’s blood is on my hands.

PB:[...] one sermon where Rob Bell states what the biblical gospel is. It should include Man’s condition, God’s standards, God’s answer to man’s problem.

I didn’t realize you were in the position to determine what the Gospel is, and what must be included in it for it to be the Gospel.

Personally, I’d consider Paul’s definition:

“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.

It was good enough for Paul, and I’ve heard Bell say this in numerous sermons. Either that, or poor Paul just didn’t cut the mustard, since he didn’t explicitly include “Man’s condition, God’s standards, God’s answer to man’s problem”.

Poor, stupid Paul.

Well, perhaps we could go with the Gospel as Jesus taught it, and treated it (i.e. ‘the kingdom of God’). In Luke, we read:

and [Jesus] sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. [...] So they set out and went from village to village, preaching the gospel and healing people everywhere.

This was before Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection, but even there he apparently had a Gospel to preach about the coming of the Kingdom of God.

I’ve certainly heard Bell preach this Gospel many times, as well.

Or, if you want to go more into expository work with the Gospel, I’d have you listen to the first three months’ sermons in 2008, where Bell went, verse-by-verse through Philippians 1 – including the parts about the gospel and about “to live is Christ and to die is gain”

But that would be too hard, because it doesn’t meet your uncharitable and nasty insinuation that Bell does not believe the gospel simply because he doesn’t state it your way as often as you demand.

Until you’re on par with God, I’ll give Bell the benefit of the doubt when he doesn’t play the game by your rules.

re:176

as i said to pastorboy, i agree that we take our responsibility seriously, and that, as teachers, we are held to a higher standard/judgment.

but i do not believe that i need fret or worry about the “blood on my hands” if i do not turn each and every sermon into modernist gospel presentation. and by modernist i mean call for some on-the-spot conversion record.

paul may have been able to say that to the epheisans because he preached the whole counsel of god… but it does not mean that he did it in one sitting, or each and every time they met.

i am calling for a balance between what some call vague, cloudy, philosophy and the compulsion to turn every sermon into a call for conversion.

#177: I agree with you. There is that modernist approach – preach > altar call. I didn’t think PB was advocating for that specifically (could be wrong). I think he was simply mentioning the fact that the gospel itself should be preached – the good news, sin, repentance, the cross, etc…

These elements seem to be strangely missing from the preaching of some men.

I see your point though Neil.

Funnily enough, Benny Hinn supporters say the exact same thing!

Welcome to the False Analogy.

Or the False Dichotomy

I don’t do altar calls.

I still preach the Gospel.

Chris L and Phil, I disagree. It may not be the modernist approach, but it also not some nebulous Kingdom of God. Throughout the scriptures there is a call for justification that is by faith. It involves repentance. It involves the object of faith, the real Jesus.

Baptism is an act of obedience after you are saved. It is not part of the Gospel, but it is part of the process of discipleship.

I guess the thief on the cross isn’t in heaven.

I didnt say it was a nebulous reality. Quit misquoting me. Rob Bell is VERY nebulous about what the kingdom of God is and where it is.

I don’t do altar calls.

this is just a method, and we are talking about content.

i find no biblical injunction that requires a gospel presentation in each and every sermon unless we know 100% of the audience is born-again or their blood is on our hands.

and what does that mean anyway?

The gospel: God loves the universe and step by step He’s making everything right again.

Paul emphasizes the cross and suggests he is persecuted for preaching the cross. The cross is the heart of the gospel, and the empty tomb substantiates the cross and Who Jesus was.

To devalue the cross is dangerous.

i’d say to devalue either is dangerous. in different placed paul emphasizes the resurrection as much as the cross. you cannot have one w/o the other and the other is not victory w/o the one.

Regarding Paul and the Cross, I’d recommend Michael Gorman’s book Apostle of the Crucified Lord. He makes the point that Paul defined his entire ministry through the narrative of crucifixion and resurrection and that as believers are lives are to be cruciform, or shaped by the cross.

Actually, the whole transformation through suffering seems to be something Bell has picked up on recently in his Drops Like Stars book and talks.

I have rarely heard someone refer to the sacrifice of Jesus as “not an occupied cross” in an obvious demeaning way. It’s just horrifying.

I don’t think Chris was trying to be demeaning. It is true, though. Without the Resurrection, Paul said our faith is useless and we are to be pitied more than all men.

When we speak aqnd teach about the cross, we all know it isn’t “occupied”.

go into any roman catholic building and you will see plenty of occupied crosses. that is how i took it.

I agee. But I view the resurrection asthe light that illuminates back upon the cross, and instead of a dead Jew, we see a sacrificed Messiah. I know you would never demean that cross, and I would never downplay the resurrection, but the cross cannot be over emphasized.

The Roman Catholic cross’s are meant as a memorial. There are two ordinaces of the church, one (communion) remembers the cross and one (baptism) remembers both the cross and the resurrection.

Too many people are “resurrected” without being crucified.

I imagine that was the older brother’s view as well…

(Being the oldest child in the family, I often found/find his viewpoint too easy for me to slip in to…)

because we know our tomb will be empty and that Christ occupied the cross – Chris L

Thats true, but the Lord also demands that “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” I think that’s why we keep the crucifixes up. We are called to be members of him. Our crosses and daily sufferings are meaningless, unless united to his cross.

The Roman Catholic cross’s are meant as a memorial. There are two ordinaces of the church, one (communion) remembers the cross and one (baptism) remembers both the cross and the resurrection.

Rick,
I think that if you study the FACTS a little closer, the dreaded RCC considers every Eucharist a memorial of the passion, death, and resurrection. And every Sunday mass is a “little Easter”.
St. Jerome – “Sunday is the day of the resurrection, it is the day of Christians, it is our day.”

well, great…i guess all that teaching about orderly worship from Paul was a betrayal of the Gospel…

really, PB, taking your opinion to their logical conclusions means that massive portions of the teaching ministry of Scripture could be eliminated and you will still believe it to be “faithful” and probably “more Christian”…

IF, and it’s a really big IF, there was ever really a golden age when churches and preachers preached the way you think we should “return” to, or “start” doing, or whatever, there were a ton of people who thought they were Christians and when they died probably went to hell.

tragic, sad, and the reality of things not mitigated by some accession to your ideas/methods.

You need to re-read Eph. 4…think about the equipping persons (who are the gifts themselves to the Church) and then re-think your stance on “speaking ministry” in the church.

Scripture explicitly states those gifts are given to us so that we grow up to full maturity in our inner being.

That means God’s Spirit is eminently concerned with the development of God’s people WELL AFTER their “regeneration” and the punctiliar justification you so obsess over.

I ultimately agree with Scotty’s overall comment and Nathan’s as well. I have no problem witha three ring circus in order to draw people, or even sermons that deal exclusively with issues pertaining to believers. I have done all of including dressing up as “Conga” the friendly gorrilla in Sinday school.

We went from averaging 90 in Sunday School to 386 that day, and in the subsequent months many people were converted by our outreach. That is my point, I find little if any gospel at Mars Hill. Without the cross, the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins regardless how many social injustices you confront or hungry people you feed etc..

#214 – I openly criticize both. I find Noble fleshly and careless, as do I find Ingrid. And in the scenario presented by the link I find no Christianity at all.

I find the actions of members of the church reprehensible, and I find the responses by the man who was attacked as cultural and not Biblical.

When the missionaries in Pakistan or Iraq are threatebed and lied about, to whom can the go to find earthly justice? And upon which blog can they write to gain environmental support?

The man was right for criticizing the original sex billboards, but he is wrong for responding and continuing to respond to his own persecution.

The man was right for criticizing the original sex billboards, but he is wrong for responding and continuing to respond to his own persecution.

Yep! I agree.

to me, Noble is a joke, self-inflated, blah, blah, blah, blah, but he’s not my pastor…

and i’ll give a lot more latitude to someone in the trenches of real ministry at a local church, trusting God’s Spirit to move there. (newsflash: The Holy Spirit still ain’t the ODM’s.)

futhermore, i’m not going to get on my high horse about things that i really know nothing about..since that’s gossip and gossips don’t inherit the Kingdom.

the “ministries” of lone ranger anger and shame deserve rebuke and derision because they are extra-biblical to the place and context in which discernment is to be exercised, under the guidance and formation of Godly elders in a local church.

and, NO, an independent “ministry” board of directors doesn’t count.

there is no national platform for discernment that has any real spiritual authority beyond a local assembly unless the ODM’s want to change their ecclesiology…which they won’t….making them hypocrites…again.

” the person who is most closely associated with our doctrinal point of view – or another words – just like the unsaved do.”

I find it incredible that you can criticize people like Ingrid and Ken who do what they do in the public towards public people, and yet can support through silence the destructive and unchristian efforts of pastors and their underlings.

Support through silence? What the heck are you talking about? We’re not called to expose the sins of every pastor around the world. Those who take it upon themselves to do so like Ken and Ingrid are opening themselves up for a sad time on judgment day. The same standard they use to judge others will be used against them.

What Perry Noble does is no concern to me, really. I barely know who he is apart from seeing a few videos of him online. Frankly, to spend an inordinate amount of time hunting heretics in the Church at large is to live below our calling as a Christian.

PB,
You’re inability to stay on the topic of a post is astounding. I guess when you can’t present facts to actually win an argument it’s easier to divert the attention to another issue. Sorry, I’m not going to stoke your pathetic ego any longer and I hope others follow suit.

including dressing up as “Conga” the friendly gorrilla in Sinday school.

Thanks Rick, here it is a day later and I STILL can’t shake the image of you crawling into a gorilla suit!

adventures in missing the point.

You had the video (I cant link videos for some reason) of Perry Noble saying that he ignores criticism. You went on to say that this was about ODM’s blah blah blah. “Whats wrong with this video?

From Coop-

I’m with you, Joe; I watched the video, and read the posts at CRN & 5 Point Salt, and I really don’t understand what their issue is. I got that he fully understands that Jesus didn’t turn over tables in the temple because people were insulting him (although, in a way, they were, by turning His Father’s house into a “den of thieves”), and I also fully understood his point and the point that he related from Rick Warren: don’t respond to your critics by giving them more fuel for the fire. Live your life and conduct your ministry in a manner that is above reproach, but don’t act like you’re above reproach.

well, it turns out that apparently, this video was an introduction to and a call for open season on at least one critic that we know about.

I am wondering when Joe will issue an apology, and, since he is a contributor here, when PPP will issue one also. Or, do we support institutional-led attacks and hatred towards other believers?

This isnt from silence.

Or, do we support institutional-led attacks and hatred towards other believers?

seriously – do you even read what your write?

What a pastor says publicly is open for affirmation, correction, rebuke, etc., but the incident in question has many moving parts and is an in house situation.

I will remain silent, even though there is something dirty going on there.

There will come a time when all secrets are revealed!

allender spoke of being broken, and if we have the smell of not being broken (am i paraphrasing that correctly) those outside will know and take it as self-righteousness.

i am not sure i understand his point enough to agree or disagree – how did y’all take him to mean? and to what extent do you agree?

Re: 238
telling me you did not get to that part and bringing up yet another tangential issue is of no help.

Re:238

After having received Christ, the Holy Spirit made aware of my unworthiness (ala the apostle Paul) that I was a murderer and whore.

Not some Preacher on a street corner screaming at my prior to Christ that I was a murderer and a whore.

Not criticizing the method only the fact that the scales on my eyes were removed by the Holy Spirit not a man.

But what I find AMAZING is that Dan Allender, at Mars Hill Bible Church, church home of Joe Martino, can use murderer and whore and it is a great sermon that he really enjoys.

But a street preacher, using those same terms in the same type of context, is roundly condemned and criticized just because he or she is a street preacher.

I do not see the difference. [emphasis mine]

Which should be revelatory, simply at face value.

Perhaps, the context (the physical setting, the participants, the culture of those participants, the occasion, etc.) is not “the same type of context”.

You’ve missed this point on numerous occasions over the past few years, but perhaps it is not the words used to say something, but the actual meaning and impact of the message which comes to play…

The fact that you do not see the difference suggests that perhaps, discernment just isn’t your gig. (1 Corinthians 12:17)

I am only now getting to the audio, but having followed this thread since its inception…I am quite at a loss, 15 minutes in, as to what all the hubbub is about.

I kind of think that if this sermon had been preached at John McArthurs church and not Mars Hill we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Well, I disagree that there is no gospel in this sermon. He is quoting the very words of Jesus Messiah. He quotes also from the apostle James. He talks about the nature of the Gospel and repentance, hell, contrition, God, sin, brokenness, Scripture, Jesus and Jesus’ opinion of us, the Gospel is ‘the good news’, Luke 15, prodigals, sin, killers, whores, rapists, broken people, adultery, idolatry, responsible parenthood, confession, God’s embrace of us, fellowship, evangelism, and more.

“God only dances with whores and killers.” I love that line.

The “Light of God is worth living for and worth dying for.”

Hmm. I don’t see the problem. It’s a fantastic sermon and a wonderful application of the passage he read at the outset. It’s in context. It is exegeted properly.

Really, what is the problem here?

I think it depends greatly on what one wants to hear. I wanted to hear what someone had to say about the Word of God. I wanted to hear how it was applied and what it means for the life I am called to live in Christ.

Some people want ammunition to fight an imaginary war.

It’s not interesting at all that we come away with different perspectives. He was talking to the church where the Gospel was assumed in a variety of ways–say singing, communion, scripture reading, offerings, testimonies, etc.

What is interesting is that some people are always so fired up to hear instead of listen. I heard the Gospel because I listened. I heard the voice of Christ because I paid attention and examined myself instead of someone else.

(And if you need me to, I’ll listen again and point times beside all those things I heard him mention in the sermon. This isn’t perspective, Rick, it’s biological. You know, that whole ‘he who has ears to hear’ thing.)

I am only now getting to the audio, but having followed this thread since its inception…I am quite at a loss, 15 minutes in, as to what all the hubbub is about.

it’s a false hub-bub.

I kind of think that if this sermon had been preached at John McArthurs church and not Mars Hill we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

i tend to agree.

I think it depends greatly on what one wants to hear. – jerry

this sums it up nicely jerry. pastorboy wanted to hear a challenge to the non-born-again to be born-again.

this the sermon did not contain.

there fore it is lacking (based on one narrow, ethnocentric, man made, abiblical paradigm).

“allender spoke of being broken, and if we have the smell of not being broken (am i paraphrasing that correctly) those outside will know and take it as self-righteousness.”

Am I aloowed to say I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. It seems I have ears for that.

Isn’t humility just extension of brokenness? That’s how I heard it. Brokenness would not manifest itself in arrogance, but it would through humility.

re 260: amazing how you can miss three different points in one comment.

The truth is, it was a good sermon with lots of questions, good illustrations, but still no answer.

if i thought you had the least bit of interest in discussing this, as opposed to just expressing what you think are the faults and failings, i’d answer.

as it is, i hold no such illusions, so i will not.

#260–I seriously do not comprehend how you can say that he didn’t provide an answer? The answer is the solution provided by God for those who are contrite and recognize their brokenness. The answer is found in the very word of God he was preaching from.

Then again, it wasn’t that kind of sermon either was it? It was a sermon that was saying to x-tians, “What are you doing to BE salt and light in the world? Are you going into the dark, dark places of the world and being light?”

You see, for those of you who are not preachers…sometimes we preachers preach sermons to CHRISTIANS who need to be taught what it means to be a Christian–or, in Mars Hill parlance, to Christians who need to be converted or ’saved.’

You see, sometimes it is the people of God who need the challenge. I know in White Horse Inn circles we are not allowed to assume the Gospel, but sometimes the Gospel is assumed. Furthermore, we only heard the sermon. We don’t know what was said leading up to the sermon, or after the sermon, or during the worship, or during the announcements, or was printed in the bulletin or posted on a powerpoint above his head.

And, to be sure brother Rick, if the ear-plugs fit…but I’m willing to bet that when you were preaching you took an occasion every now and again to preach to Christians about what it means to be a Christian and that you assumed the Gospel as you did.

As if it is any less self-righteous to suggest that ‘perspective’ either ‘does or doesn’t matter.’ Instead of snide comments like that, you could have talked about the point I was making in my comment.

Rick, this might come as a surprise to you, but you are not the only person in the world who knows how to listen and interpret what is heard. You said from the get-go that a link was missing which only goes to show that you didn’t listen to the sermon preached by Allender. Either that or you are just terrified to admit that someone from Mars Hill’s pulpit actually preached a Christ-centered sermon which was designed to uproot Christians from the safety of their lethargy.

How can a link be missing when the very sermon preached is from the very words of Jesus Christ? If Allender had preached from, say, the communist manifesto then, sure, a link would have been missing. But the passage he spoke from is the very words of Jesus Messiah. You can’t be much more gospel than that. Seriously.

No link was missing. It is simply your prejudice against anyone who doesn’t ‘preach the right Rick Frueh way.’ Which, ironically, is the same problem John Chisham has. You can stand up and talk about the cross all day long, and have a morbid obsession with the death of Jesus, but if you never talk about the Resurrection and how that forces us to re-examine our lives, well, then you end up with nothing more than a horror film where nothing ever changes.

Are any of the sermons you have preached available on line? I’d seriously like to listen to a few of them and do some posts about them and criticize them for content? Let’s listen to some Rick Frueh sermons and see if he always, always, always, offered an invitation and talked about ‘the Gospel.’

Interact with what I wrote about all the elements that are included in the sermon instead of telling all of us that ‘different perspectives either do or don’t matter.’ That’s a cop out.

Do you think Christians never need to hear about how to be salt and light? We are not salt and light apart from Jesus, apart from the Words of Jesus, apart from the death of Jesus–salt and light is meaningless. So how is the link missing, sir?

Fact is, aside from your snarky comments about self-righteousness you have no solid argument against the points I have made in defense of Allender’s sermon. Your only argument is ‘Jerry is self righteous and lacks perspective.’ Oh. OK.

I remember Jesus preaching a sermon to the so-called woman at the well one day. Never once mentioned his death–but did expose her darkness and talked about marriage, worship, himself, her sin, water, but never mentioned his death. In fact, all he really did was enter into her darkness and expose it.

Did you see the cross in the Sermon on the Mount where Allender’s text was? I sure didn’t. But I guess the only way for a sermon to be valid is for it to introduce elements into the Biblical text that are not already there.

Maybe, just maybe, the folks at Mars Hill needed to hear that sermon because they have grown lazy and complacent and needed a new vision of how dark the world is and why they need to get out into it? Maybe their pastor discerned that Allender could say something to them that would be that Holy Spirit spark to motivate them to action?

Probably the real problem you have is that he preached from the Gospels instead of Paul, at Mars Hill instead of Coral Ridge, and that his sermon might actually be the catalyst for action instead of a tickling of the ears.

i wonder how often “tickling of the ears” is really just code for “this does not share my preferences on what should be emphasized”…